Obama versus Thomas

Wow – big surprise!

Obama disagrees with Thomas’s positions and also would not have nominated Scalia.

In my opinion, there are two types of black men.  The ones who celebrate and honor Martin Luther King’s work by using their equality to advance themselves independently without affirmative action, the ones who have too much pride to play the race card and to hang around pastors who believe everything is to be blamed on white America.

Then, there’s Obama.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Obama versus Thomas

  1. Agreed. I’m Bi-racial and grew up in an all black home with a single mother. My grandparents were proud hard working Reagan Democrats who hated communism and the horrible Black Nationalism that was passed off as religion in some churches, but I had an uncle or two who swore they were too oppressed to get work. They were in and out of jail and basically cleaned out my Grandparents savings by sponging off them.

    Obama wants the Black community to e comprised of people like my uncles because liberalism hates success, pride and most importantly self-determination.

  2. Rob, that is correct. What Obama and people of his type do are to give pats to racist white liberals who think that blacks are a stupid crowd. They patronize racism by insinuating that blacks need affirmative action which implies they aren’t as talented as others. All of the whites supporting Obama really aren’t proponents of the black community empowering themselves….yet only propose blacks serving to empower a larger voter base.

  3. jesus what twisted logic you use steve!

    Your logic proposes that a motivated intelligent black still couldn’t be discriminated against.

    Affirmative Action comes from a direct belief that blacks are of equal talent and motivation, but that inequities in the system don’t enable them to fully enable that talent. Or did you fail to read your history books?

    Affirmative Action may be an imperfect solution, but then again we haven’t come up with any perfect solutions for bigotry in the intervening years. Or are you so naive as to think that there aren’t people in this country who’d try to keep someone down based on their race? I’ve seen it with my own eyes, so I’m not so willing to be so naive.

    And neither for a moment did you stop and think that maybe the overwhelming black support for the candidate was a community recognizing the best example of talent and opportunity amongst themselves.

    Affirmative Action sucks. Congrats, you scored a point; come up with a better solution. But you’re ability to frame the world in nothing but the narrowest of conservative blinders is startling.

  4. Marc, when I was still living in the South, the first job I tried to apply for while in high school–at a Wal-Mart–was denied by the hiring manager. She was black, and she was quite proud of the fact that she would only hire blacks when she could get away with it. Racism goes both ways. Affirmative Action isn’t the answer. There are, in fact, other ways; what do you think the EEOC is there for?

    I didn’t see anything in any of the comments above that said a person couldn’t be discriminated against because of race. Where’d you get that?

  5. Marc – Rob pretty much gave us the jist of what Affirmative Action did. It was not the proclamtion of liberals that blacks were smart. It never has been, nor it never will be.

    First, they have no problem allowing blacks to feel inferior. It helps their cause because they can attempt to go back to a day where liberals were viewed as a group of folks who loved the victims of the world – when in essence, its their votes they want.

    Of course an intelligent black could be discriminated against. I never said they couldn’t – it happened when Condoleezza Rice was appointed as Secretary of State and white liberals started proclaiming she wasn’t experienced enough and Jeff Danziger published cartoons of Condi talking slow and uneducated.

    They did it with Clarence Thomas – suddenly, in the eyes of liberals, he wasn’t experienced and became “Uncle Clarence.”

    Affirmative action hasn’t stopped white liberals from showing their true colors while it simultaneously tells us how many of each we must have on a police force or a fire department.

    That reigns above qualifications and personal achievment – implying they need an edge to make it.

    Something Condi Rice defied, something Clarence Thomas defied, and something Janice Rogers-Brown defied.

  6. “Of course an intelligent black could be discriminated against. ”

    Maybe years ago but far less here and now. If any of you are in managment then you know how very hard it is to hire people with strong work ethics and bona fide talent. When someone walks into your firm and possesses such skills you hire that person. You don’t hesiitate for one split second.

  7. “Affirmative Action comes from a direct belief that blacks are of equal talent and motivation, but that inequities in the system don’t enable them to fully enable that talent. ”

    Yes and the remedy for that inequity is free market capitalism not reverse discrimination against white people or in the case of college admissions in CA, discrimination against Asian people too.

  8. Right, cause the Democrats were so vigorously “opposed” to Colin Powell based on his race too. In fact, I’m sure the Democrats thought he was Bush’s best choice; then Bush paraded him in front of the UN with misinformation and ruined his credibility.

    So the democrats, definitely the bad guys here.

  9. Right. All objective evidence points to that. We got Clarence Thomas from a Republican, we got Colin Powell from a Republican, we got Condoleezza Rice from a Republican.

    When Albright hit, we heard everyday about “the first female secretary of state!” What a trend-setter that Bill Clinton was.

    When Pelosi hit, we heard everday about “the first female speaker!” What trend-setters those Democrats are.

    But when the first black-female secretary of state hits, all we hear is how she was unqualified and a puppet for Bush.

    Liberals kept portraying her as someone who operated on Bush’s command and brain – while telling us at the same time how stupid he was and how HE was operating off of Cheney’s brain.

    Appointments, jobs, etc. Even the past suggests Republicans are and have always been the party of true equality.

  10. First, I was using sarcasm steve.

    Second, you still have yet to prove how Democrats opposing partisan choices for appointments, no matter what their race, is bigotry.

    Third, appointments are equality lite. Real diversity isn’t just interjecting minorities into your administration where it’s convenient for PR; it’s helping minority candidates rise through your party structure.

    At which the Republican party has failed miserably in comparison to the Democrats, being far outpaced in the number of minorities and women.

    But hey, you guys just scored Lieberman, so score one to your argument, still dozens to go.

  11. I know it was sarcasm, but it’s the smartest thing you said in this thread, so I went with it. It was so much nicer putting things forth in an agreeable tone as opposed to one that seemed argumentative – much like this message will sound.

    I suppose if Bush were as smart as Clinton, he would have had the closest black-female to him as his personal secretary – like Clinton did with Betty Curry.

    Republicans don’t view blacks as “blacks.” We view them as people. When Bush appointed Condi, Colin, or when he nominated Janice Rogers-Brown, I am certain he saw them as individuals worthy as George HW Bush did when he nominated Clarence Thomas.

    We’re not appointing anyone based on race. We are appointing based on individuality. It just so happens that our eyes seem to ignore color or sex whereas the Democrats seem to notice so much that the NY Times front story would read about it for weeks if Condoleezza was an appointment under Clinton.

    In 2001, Democrats said that blacks were stupid by blaming the problem with the butterfly ballot on their “inability to figure it out.”

    After Katrina, Democrats accused blacks of engaging in cannabalism and raping 2-year olds in New Orleans.

    Both times, Democrats did this to attack Republicans. The first time they did it to underscore Bush’s win, the second time they did it to attack him on Katrina (in other words, if Bush’s response would have been perfect, none of this would have happened).

    Democrats are always willing to sit back and collect the votes of blacks (and gays) but simultaneously will say the worst things about them when it serves them politically.

    Want to hear what I have stored up from Democrats around the period of Foley scandal? The most horrible things said about the gays as a community in order to worsen the charge against Foley.

    Example:

    “Putting a gay man near a male page is like putting Willie Sutton near a bank” – Bob Beckel.

    Just like everytime a liberal refers to Ann Coulter as “Mann Coulter” – which is basically saying that being GLBT is bad enough to use it to insult Ann Coulter.

    Liberals do this stuff all the time. When it comes to actual votes or actions put forth by them to help blacks or gays, the examples are sparse, but when it comes to collecting their votes and then insulting them for the sole purposes of better attacking Republicans, the examples are plenty.

  12. Show me where the Democrats accused blacks of cannibalism.

    Also, Anne Coulter is the one who developed the idea of Mexican Taliban:
    “If we’re so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren’t they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban? ”
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html

    So I really don’t think that as far as minority issues goes, she doesn’t deserve to be played anything but hardball.

    Lastly, and this is all I’ll have to say on the matter steve as this is going nowhere, as you like to address my facts with counterfactuals only when it is convenient for you.

    My impression of the Republican party and their “stance” towards minorities is forged from personal experience. I was in Cincinnati in 2004, the city Kerry would have needed to win to win Ohio, and therefore the country.

    I was helping with neighborhood voter registration in an area known as over-the-rhine, a predominantly black neighbor outside of the city. I spent my weekends knocking on doors and working registration desks and we managed to register a fair number of people.

    Little did we know that after we went through the registration process the Ohio Republican Party, ran by the criminally inclined Bob Taft at the time, was taking the list of all newly registered voters and sending them mailers from the Ohio Republican Party, asking if the registered voter lived at that residence.

    Being loyal Democrats they tossed the mailing away without opening it to see what’s inside. The Republican Party then used those non-responses as evidence of illegal registrations, claiming that because of the lack of response the voter obviously didn’t live at that address. Across Ohio, they managed to remove close to 80,000 votes from the roles.
    I was later informed that in the neighborhood I worked in, nearly half of the voters who turned up at the ballot box were told only then that they were removed from the rolls.

    In that election year there was 2 major issues in Ohio; the presidential election and Issue #1 – the gay marriage amendment ban. Conservative leaders were able to rally their base by using issue #1 to get their voters to the polls and to obviously vote against John Kerry. Many voters who would not of likely turned out otherwise turned out to make sure that a gay marriage ban was added to the constitution of the state of Ohio.

    Now I can’t say Kerry would have won Ohio had things turned out differently; however I do know that a number of minorities were treated unfairly in order to reach the Republican goal of re-electing the president.

    You may have high idea about your party Steve, but if you actually participated in the electoral process at the ground level, you’d know precisely what your party is about.

  13. Marc – it was during the aftermath of Katrina where liberals and the media were “reporting” people trying to eat one another in New Oreleans. In their eyes; at the time, they thought this was something to use to better attack the President.

    Ann Coulter’s comment wasn’t racist! It was true. If minorities were so abused, why do they keep showing up? Why aren’t they joining groups to hurt us? It’s a perfectly sensible argument.

    Not quite sure if calling her “Mann Coulter” could her considered “Hardball” but okay.

    And I am not quite sure why you are stating that people were using the marriage issue in order to get people to the polls to vote against John Kerry? Kerry/Edwards both during the 2004 debates stated they were against gay marriage.

    Also – the FMA was introduced right after the Vermont ruling and the Prop 22 vote in California making it obvious that the people wanted a clear chance to vote on the issue.

    That’s what Bush gave them.

  14. Ohio issue #1 was a state ban on gay marriage and civil unions, which was much more the issue among state evangelicals than the re-election of Bush. Anytime spent listening to Ohio radio would tell you as much, as the the airwaves were saturated with pro-issue #1 ads. This was in contrast the Kerry/Edwards who were pro-civil union.

    As for Coulter, I don’t know what unneeded bias her statement in fact falls under; however the possibility of a Mexican Taliban isn’t that realistic so its more than obvious that she’s more interesting in distorting facts for sensationalist purposes than having honest discussions about the issues.

  15. President Bush also supported Civil Unions during the 2004 campaign and speaking of Ann Coulter it was one of the few times I disagreed with her because she was angry at Bush for that. While indeed most conservatives are interested in marriage, not civil unions.

    And yes if #1 issues had to do with marriage, the people made it that way. On civil unions, Kerry and Edwards held no different position than Bush did.

    Finally, it’s a point. Many people argue that terrorism is a result of American bullying and even say that acts like 9/11 are in retaliation to the Crusades War that happened a thousand years ago….her point is true, if Mexican illegals felt abused by America, they would form a coalition correlating it with the liberal theory about Islamic terrorism.

  16. yes steve,
    Kerry and Bush’s equivalent stance on the issues is what would have kept a number of single issue voters home if not for issue #1.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s